Looking for le mot juste

So, a screenplay? One that allegorizes the desire to be 'in' the world but not 'of' it? Perhaps one that challenges the validity of that idiom? Regardless, that was the assignment, so here we go...

For those of you in my Christianity & Culture class this will actually be new to you since I never ended up reading my pitch (nor did two others, but its ok). Well, just as well. Mine was quite possibly the darkest of all the ideas. You see, my idea was steeped in symbolism and metaphorical value, but on the surface could be hard to interpret (like when people insist that Signs was about aliens). But enough of this, on to the movie film!

It is mid-afternoon on Labour Day, 1837. Henry de La Poer Beresford and his foolhardy companions head out on a fox hunt near Melton Mowbray, England. After much success they happened upon a shed which they entered searching for more liquor but found only copious amounts of red paint for farm use. Known for doing anything for a bet, Henry and his chums splatter the paint on buildings up and down High Street giving birth to a new idiom.

So began (or continued) the revelry and daredevil antics of Henry and his 'friends' into London. Not long after their 'artistic venture' one of the group dared him to don a 'devil mask' and spook some random fool. So, hiding in a cemetery they waited for their 'prey.' Conveniently an older businessman was returning late from work along their path. As he passed the group hoisted Henry on the wall from which he leaped on the man. Full of adrenaline from the ambush and satisfied with the effect of terror, Henry sprinted off into the night only to meet up with his friends at a club. And so we have the first documented encounter with the strange leaping 'terror' nick-named "Springheel Jack" by the London Times.

Well, a successful prank, eh? Oh, but it was more than that. You see, the terror imbibed and dispensed that night had thrilled Henry beyond what he thought possible. Sure he was a reveler and a playboy, but these were attached to his title (Marquess of Waterford) as were his fairweather friends and romantic successes. Inside Henry hated and despised his crowd. Indeed, he felt perhaps he hated everyone. Maybe he was abused as a child, rejected by a love, putdown for his personality, or all of the above. But he harboured resentment against society even though it was his livelihood.
But "Jack"... in "Jack" he had discovered power. The power to terrorize gave vehicle for his upset.

From here we see the escalation of depravity as Henry becomes more debauch and Jack more licentious and terrifying (a veritable 'Jekyl' and 'Hyde'). Indeed, like a deprave Bruce Wayne and cruel Caped Crusader he created a dark creature with impish features, tall muscular stature, and the ability to leap inhuman distances and heights and even spit blue flame.
Besides the allusions I've already made, this one should be noted.

So, there it is. I think I would go for Robert Rodriguez as director and Daniel Day Lewis for "Jack" if he would be willing to do it (and if the casting agent didn't think he was too old to play 26 year-old Henry).

La Danse Macabre

Lately death, darkness, and humanity have been prevalent themes in my musing. Above is a picture of the "Dance of Death" (click on the picture to learn more). If you look closely you will notice that the dancing spectres are from varying statures and walks of life. The idea of La Danse Macabre is of the universality of death and that it ultimately is the unifying factor of humanity (now I know someone would like to add their thoughts to this post). As Benjamin Franklin said in 1789:

Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.

So, logically, here is the taxman:

(I'll post my "movie-idea" later).

Art & Honesty

Perusing some of my classmates' blogs I am noticing a theme about art & Christianity (no doubt in relation to reading Asher Lev). Particularly the question seems to be in connection to artform and expression regarding worship. How do we judge the value of art (or, indeed, can we) in this context? This would be a simple issue if art was limited to honest self-expression that edifies the body of Christ. However, is art really art if it is limited?
So what are we stuck with? Artforms that fit the template of church worship but not necessarily the soul of the artist? Artistic expression that is deep and honest but inappropriate or even vulgar to the worship community? Obviously this is not always the case, but it is a real conflict. Guaranteed there are many whose opinions fall blatantly and firmly on either side of this fence. But what about those of us in the middle? Is there a balance to be found? Or should we stop straddling the fence because of the barbed-wire?
Click here for a somewhat similar question.

Now, speaking of honesty, I recently watched The Big Kahuna with Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. One of the main themes in the film is honesty (ie: in character). Well worth watching if you don't mind expletives and the stageplay style (the style worked for me). It is about 3 salesman at various stages in life. The youngest, "Bob," is a nervous and conservative Christian who cannot resist proselytizing. The oldest, "Phil" (DeVito), is like "Willy Loman" with hope. The catalyst in the middle, "Larry" (Spacey), is so many people I know. Basically, put these 3 in a room for 24 hours, shake and serve. Regarding honesty, Phil says:

It doesn't matter whether you're selling Jesus or Buddha or civil rights or 'How to Make Money in Real Estate With No Money Down.' That doesn't make you a human being; it makes you a marketing rep. If you want to talk to somebody honestly, as a human being, ask him about his kids. Find out what his dreams are - just to find out, for no other reason. Because as soon as you lay your hands on a conversation to steer it, it's not a conversation anymore; it's a pitch.

Well, what do you think?

One more thought and thing to ponder (and comment on): the words of Oscar Wilde -

Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life.

3pm thoughts

No particular point to this post. Just doing my civic duty of taking a mental 'dump' on the side of the information superhighway. Actually, this is one of the few ways for the ideas spewing forth in my head to escape today (and yesterday). I think I have laryngitis. However, it has been both a frustrating and refreshing experience to not be able to speak. Kind of like a 'listening bootcamp.'

Anyway, check out this article and let me know what you think. Not just about the 'mark-O-the-beast' stuff but about the increasing publicity of our lives through the privitization of technology.

Also, in keeping with the theme of some of the movies I watched last week, check out this guy:

Name: Springheel Jack. Status: Legend.
I think I might try writing a screenplay based on this guy (though I've never tried such before) especially since there is very little beyond 'penny dreadfuls' that have been about him. (the guy in the picture that fell over looks kind of like Leo).

Roman computer gods and you!

2 weeks ago, in the class for which I began this blog, we watched “How Should We Then Live?” by Francis Schaffer. That was all fine and somewhat humorous at times. Yesterday I was cross-referencing the term “Deus Ex Machina” (the new title of my blog—it means “god from the machine”) and all its various interpretations when I came across Cooper's Law. Simply put it says that “all machines are amplifiers.” Today I had an epiphany.

You see, I picked “Deus Ex Machina” as the new title to suggest the literary usage (sudden inexplicable resolution to an impossibility) as well the idea of blogging to explore Christianity (think about it: God from the machine/computer). Anyway, Cooper's Law is also a literary device (particularly in sci-fi) that says that any piece of predominant technology (especially advanced-tech) in literature serves as an amplification to human persona and, quite possibly, as a deus ex machina.

So, what about Francis? Well, at one point he says that the pagan gods of the Romans, like the Greeks before them, were simply amplified humanity: "Their gods depended upon the society that had made them and when this society collapsed the gods tumbled with it.”

Do you see where I'm going with this? Two notable thinkers from completely different spectrums (Schaffer a Christian historian and Cooper, well he either invented the cell phone or wrote some books) coming up with similar devices. Schaffer + Cooper = Techno-deity. I might be completely misinterpreting these two by comparing them. Either way, it made me think.

What do you think? Has our modernistic techno-saturated science-worshipping knowledge-junky culture developed its own pantheon? I know what G.K. Chesterton thought:

"When men stop believing in God they don't then believe in nothing, they believe in anything!"